Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Send in the Crowns

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Petunia Winegum on March 9, 2015

We are often informed that failings in any public body are due to a lack of investment, a shortage of staff, or bureaucratic distractions that get in the way of doing the job. The Police Force has regularly wheeled-out these reasons (excuses?) whenever they get something wrong in a major way. But up until as recently as the mid-1980s, the police workload could be considerably more demanding because it was down to officers who were investigating a case to also prosecute. Bar the occasional intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions for significant and especially serious cases, the vast majority of prosecutions in this country were firmly in the hands of the police. On one hand, this might explain why so many innocent people were sentenced either to hang or to lengthy prison sentences; on the other, it meant policemen would follow a case through from start to finish, having invested months of work in it and bringing a thorough knowledge of the case to court.

After many decades of deliberation over several high-profile miscarriages of justice, the eventual establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service in 1986 saw an organisation independent of both police and government take over a great deal of this aspect of police work, leaving the police with the job of prosecuting minor offences whilst the CPS took on the ‘glamour’ jobs. The new body was supposed to reduce the substantial number of wrongful convictions that had occurred when the police had been left to their own devices, and though the Attorney General was nominated to represent the CPS in Parliament, he had minimal involvement in its duties other than nominating its head. In theory, the CPS was formed with laudable intentions and staffed by solicitors and barristers whose presumed impartiality compared to the often blinkered aim of police detectives to get their man at all costs was supposed to ensure a fairer system of justice for all.

Technically, the CPS should be detached from any political influence or bias and simply attend to the function it was set up to attend to; yet, in recent years it has increasingly extended its original remit so that it has morphed into a morally-crusading collective of Cromwellian proportions, acting as the legal wing of the Court of Public Opinion. Its head now tends to be someone who comes to the position with a predetermined agenda they seek to impose on the organisation, stepping outside of its official role and behaving with all the zealous fanaticism of a nineteenth century reform group. The CPS was not established because the country needed a judicial equivalent of the Festival of Light; but those appointed to run it now appear to view themselves as the lovechild of Matthew Hopkins and Mary Whitehouse.

That waxen vacuum of personality, Keir Starmer, was both the Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013, following a successful career as a QC. Many long suspected his political allegiances leaned towards Labour, and just as God-fearing Tony Blair converted to Catholicism upon retiring from public office (confirming long-held suspicions), Starmer wasted little time in announcing his intention to stand as a Labour candidate at the 2015 General Election the moment he handed over the CPS to his very own Igor, Alison Saunders. This was no great surprise, as the manner in which he ran the CPS was characterised by a rigid adherence to the worst aspects of the common sense-free, New Labour rhetoric of the ridiculous.

He was perhaps a little too eager to get his face on television, yet not so eager to publicise his persecution of Paul Chambers, the man who had posted a tongue-in-cheek tweet of frustration from Robin Hood Airport when his plane was delayed; according to the charge brought against him, Chambers’ joke comment about blowing the airport sky-high was ‘a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’. Chambers was found guilty, fined £385, forced to pay £600 costs and lost his job in the process; he embarked upon three separate appeals before his conviction was eventually quashed, becoming something of a cause célèbre and attracting the support of prominent figures from the world of comedy such as Stephen Fry, Al Murray and Graham Linehan.

Interestingly, it later transpired the CPS were prepared to drop the case before the third appeal, but their offer to do so failed to reach Chambers following the intervention of Keir Starmer, who was intent on pursuing a case that should never have resulted in an arrest, let alone charge or conviction. Understandably, it must be a frightening prospect for the faceless to lose face (hence Starmer’s overruling of his underlings), yet despite the calls of Chambers’ constituency MP at the time, the Tory Louise Mensch, for Starmer’s behaviour to be investigated by a House of Commons committee, her calls resulted in no such investigation. Instead, Starmer rounded-off his stint as CPS Godfather by overseeing the beginning of the Yewtree circus, the perfect carriage clock to mark his retirement, along with the token gong for a goon, the inevitable knighthood.

Undaunted by the extortionate costs to the taxpayer that many of the unnecessary prosecutions he has pursued with vigour have incurred, Starmer shows no signs of smoothing out his self-righteous moralistic edges for his next hoped-for venture into public office. As he prepares to carry on the crusade as MP for Holborn and St Pancras, Starmer has continued to air his intentions to abolish the concept of ‘innocent till proven guilty’ via a series of public proposals engineered by his friends from the Victims lobby, whereas his bespectacled squat successor as CPS supremo, Alison Saunders, has picked up where Starmer left off by sticking to the script whenever a Yewtree trial has collapsed, refusing to countenance the notion of a witch-hunt, yet gloating over a ‘victory’ when the CPS’s crusade yields a sacrificial lamb.

With the ‘we-are-not-amused’ demeanour of a primary school headmistress who refuses to crack a smile when a boy breaks wind during the assembly she’s hosting, Alison Saunders has ensured her face is an even more regular fixture on the nation’s TV screens than her predecessor’s plastic profile had been. But the head of the CPS, much like the head of MI5 used to be before Stella Rimington went public, should be largely anonymous and unseen; the head of the CPS should refrain from acting as a celebrity moral watchdog; that is not supposed to be part of the job description.

Ironically, Saunders’ early tenure in the job was marked by a willingness to prosecute those who had made false allegations of rape, such as Eleanor de Frietas, who committed suicide when the CPS took control of a private prosecution against her by the man she had accused. Perhaps swayed from this particular path by the outraged public reaction to it, Saunders has significantly changed tack since then, recently stating that rape prosecutions making it to court will increase by a third this year. A crystal ball apparently now comes with the job, along with the right to move the legal goalposts when Joe Public demands it via his unelected representatives on Fleet Street.

If the formation of the Crown Prosecution Service was intended to lighten the police load and emphasise its independence from Plod, it is clearly failing in that duty as it approaches its thirtieth birthday. The extent of dubious collusion between CPS and police as revealed in the murky machinations of Yewtree not only makes a mockery of the organisation’s alleged independence, but brings into question its very raison d’être.

“Perhaps the strangest reaction, however, was from an audience focused on the age disparity between the husband and wife in the picture. Protests poured in. Nan, too, became increasingly concerned—she didn’t want to be memorialized as “married” to a much older man. So Wood altered his initial stance to claim that the painting depicted a father and daughter.”http://mentalfloss.com/article/31331/grant-woods-american-gothic

“I love that sly reference to the painting at the beginning of the movie.”

Of course you do. I would expect nothing less of you. However I would prefer you used a different adjective than “sly”, which implies subtlety and as we both know, there is nothing subtle about TRHPS! I once made the mistake of watching that film on German TV with my devoutly pious Baptist Mother-in-Law and my equally fanatical “Friend Of Jesus” Frau….apparently it is a film that NO CHRISTIAN should EVER Watch, on the Protestant index along with “Last Temptation” and “Life Of Brian” . Did anyone taking offence at BLASPHEMY was purely a Muslim ‘thang’? Trust me, the Jesus Wants You For A Sunbeam mob would have a pile of VHS tape up in flames before you could say “Get Thee Behind Me, Scorsese”…if any of them still smoked and carried lighters.

I have long wondered about you, Pet, writing a Readers Digestion type post for this blog entitled “The Rocky Horror Picture Show And It’s Part In The Fall Of The Berlin Wall”….or “How I wore a basque, threw rice and saved Western Democracy”….

Any head of any public sector organisation, or any body paid from the public purse, should have their job interviews recorded, and made available for public perusal. That way we all get to see what we’re getting for the PUBLIC money. It would save of any subsequent public enquiries should things go tits up.

There should be no sinecures in the public sector; and no secrets from the public that fund them.

That comment tells you everything you need to know about how far this country has sunk. I’m not having a pop at you Peter, you understand, but you raise an interesting point. Is this really what we have come to?

Well, it has to be seen in the context of people producing T-shirts which, when tucked into a fair of trousers, make it look like the posturing wannabe-badass wearer has a handgun in their waistband. Rather than dealing with each such case of stupidity on an individual basis, it’s easier to simply have a blanket ban.

I wondered how much soul-searching folk at ACPO and the CPS did when they launched this thing upon the nation. They tried to blame it on us. They told us that we had allowed ourselves to be groomed. In one way they were right – the Nation has allowed itself to be groomed, but not by Jimmy Savile – but rather by the fishing expedition launched by the very people we depended upon to tell us the truth. Well, their catch is in now, and the closer we get, the moor it stinks.http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rotting-from-head.html Someone recently remarked to me, ” How come nobody trusts the Authorities anymore Moor?” My answer was, “What do you mean? They trust the Authorities so much, the people believe anything they are told.”

The recent prosecution of a surgeon for “Female Genital Mutilation” is a striking example of the CPS’s agenda to enhance their own status irrespective of justice and the public good.

The doctor- of Sri Lankan origin where FGM is unknown- had been called as an emergency to assist at a very difficult delivery of a baby. He discovered that the reason for the difficult labour was that the woman had suffered FGM- among other horrors this causes tight scar tissue which may require the woman to be literally cut open to enable delivery of a baby. He made the necessary incision and delivered the baby. But due to the size of the cut that had been required, the woman was now bleeding very heavily. Prioritising the saving of her life by stopping the blood flow, the doc sewed up the cut he had made, thus (for the time being) restoring her original post-FGM condition.

For this he was hauled through the courts, and presumably suspended on full pay for the duration as per normal NHS practice. Every doctor having knowledge of the case said it was totally unjustified prosecution. Finally he was aquitted, but Saunders would not admit any error in her own conduct.

It was quite obvious that Saunders’ action was in response to (very appropriate) criticism of the legal system that not a single person had been prosecuted for FGM since it was first made illegal, even though it is well known to be a widespread practice within the UK, and the French legal system has seen 100s of prosecutions. This blameless doctor was put through the trauma of false allegations, trial, and lengthy career interruption, just to save the face of this useless woman and her staff.

The doctor did say someplace that he had realised afterwards that the “figure of 8″ suture he had used was prohbited but only later appreciated the possible legal significance of his error. So, it does seem that FGM surgery is taught to some degree in medical schools, whether here or elsewhere.

@Peter Raite This seems to be the piece I was remembering. There seems to be an unspoken question. What was it he began to “have doubt” about and why did he ask advice. Somehting about it all troubled him evidently:

“After the birth, he repaired the cut. Dharmasena told the court: “I decided to put in a suture to stop the bleeding.” Using a plastic model designed to help the training of young doctors, he showed jurors the figure of eight stitch he had sewn and the exhibit was then handed to judge and jury to examine. Explaining the brief procedure, which took around 30 seconds, Dharmasena said: “I didn’t contemplate any other suture technique. This figure of eight suture, the purpose of it is to stop bleeding. In one movement you close off and stop bleeding in the area.” Asked what he would have done if the cut was not bleeding, he said: “I would have left it alone.”

Under the 2003 FGM Act a doctor is exempted from prosecution for a criminal offence if he carries out a procedure for medical reasons during or after labour. Immediately after the delivery of AB’s baby, Dharmasena was called to carry out an emergency caesarean, and as he was in the theatre he began to doubt the procedure he had carried out on AB. To reassure himself he asked the consultant on duty for her advice. “The conversation went along the lines of her saying the technique wasn’t correct,” he said. “I explained what had happened in the delivery room, I asked her whether this was the correct surgical technique, and she advised me regarding the correct surgical technique.”

There seem to have been a few Quangos wandering off on their own not-so-sweet paths over the last few years. The Environment Agency behaved appallingly in Somerset, the result of their actions (and inactions) being a winter of misery for many Levels residents, businesses and farmers – and the drowning of an awful lot of wildlife into the bargain. The Charity Commission also came up with some pretty strange decisions until it’s upper management was replaced.

There might be a case for abolishing quite a lot of Quangos and bringing their responsibilities back under Ministry or Council control. Mind you, the reason for setting up Quangos in the first place was often a response to abuse of political power, so maybe that solution isn’t perfect either.

The problem with that was some of the quango were actually doing what they were supposed to be doing, and banning them would be a recipe for disaster, e.g. the Security Industry Authority (which essentially cleaned up a hopelessly compromised industry, and was making a profit in the process).

There was a bit of a tidy-up of rag-ends, odds and sods. There was also the ‘release’ of the British Waterways Board to the wild, as a sort of National Trust for canals (which might actually be quite a good thing, once it’s had a chance to settle down).

That’s maybe part of the problem. A fairly new Quango sets off with good faith and enthusiasm, and some either slowly ‘go native’ or are infiltrated by people having an agenda more about politics or social engineering than about serving the general public. One such example is the BBC – it even flagrantly disregards it’s own charter by refusing to discuss both sides of the climate debate, for example. Maybe there’s a case for a regular forensic examination and shake-up of every Quango by Parliament; the ones just quietly doing their jobs would ‘pass the scrutiny test’ and carry on, those going rogue would have to answer for their actions before they could do too much damage.

Your impression of the SIA seems to differ somewhat from mine. My youngest got his SIA licence despite not being able to spell his own surname. He was told at the start of the licence course that all that he needed to worry about was paying the obscene fee , “nobody fails the test” [sic]. Nor was he taught anything of real value, beyond the First Aid component- which I think he had to pay extra for? Certainly at no point was he told the First Noble Truth Of Being A Sec Man; “You are an alibi for the insurance, nothing more”.

My “impression” is informed from having been married to an SIA badgeholder, who had previously been local-council licensed, who over the years did door security (including head of security at some venues), sports venue security, airport security, and even the much-lamented 2012 Olympics security, before she became a full time teacher (secondary school, not security).

We had the EA near me last year studying the drainage in my area. We got chatting to them as they were obviously puzzled, and digging out our very old hand-drawn site-plans from many years ago, we established that their new computerised print-outs had had the arrows of water-flow printed the wrong way around in a number of the channels. The chaps were ever so grateful… especially since we save them digging up the main road nearby…

In parallel, my father worked by the same window overlooking the town’s main street for almost 50 years. One day in the early 1970s, long before digital-mapping, the Gas Board turned up and started drilling small test-holes: he asked what they were doing and the driller told him they were trying to locate the gas-main. After they’d spent 2 whole days peppering the main street with more bore-holes than a gorgonzola, dad’s conscience finally got the better of him, so he went out and told them exactly where the elusive gas-main was routed, which was then immediately found – he remembered it first being laid there around 1930 but had mischievously enjoyed the game of watching them trying to find it.

I’m inclined to think that the people ‘on the ground’ are generally a fairly decent bunch trying to do their jobs as well as they can. Where problems like the Somerset Levels fiasco arise, it’s from decisions taken by the upper echelons – and that’s where scrutiny should be concentrated.

Well actually, I’m a firm believer that rape and abuse complainants should lose their anonymity if their complaint is not upheld, and then be liable for prosecution for wasting everybody’s time and money, including any losses suffered by the respondent. Or at least I would be if I thought that the courts reached a just verdict every time, which they clearly don’t. Perhaps a cleared respondent ought to be able to sue the CPS instead, with a prima facie case. By that, I don’t mean that the taxpayer out to pay, but it ought to come out of the pockets of the likes of Starmer and Saunders and heir immediate coterie.

If the lawyers were doing their job properly then there would be no need for anyone to be victimised. Those without a rational case would have it politely explained to them and those with a rationally evidences case could proceed in the proper way. The abdication by the lawyers of their primary role to implement the laws of Reason are responsible, not the often deranged or other wise mentally unstable wannabe-victims.

Moor, I think you have just written this blog’s epitaph- I pray God it never be needed. Infact a large chunk of the intelligent blogs in the blogosphere could probably see their raisons d’être therein.

As long as allegations are to be believed without evidence don’t expect the lawyers to give up such a lucrative source of income. Money for old rope indeed. I will never u dears tans how it has come to this or why.